Michelle RempelConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I speak today to Bill C-279. I would like to thank the member for Halifax for some of her comments here today.

I have had the privilege of representing constituents in Calgary Centre North for nearly two years now. In this time, I have had the opportunity to review many pieces of legislation and debate both their merits and their flaws. As I have done so, I have been struck that oftentimes, we have to evaluate two components of legislation: the why of the bill and the how of the issue. Many times we disagree, sometimes vociferously, about the why. We have differing political ideology, thoughts on how public policy should be best utilized and thoughts on how this country should be governed. It is in this context that I first speak to the why of this bill.

After reading testimony from witnesses during this iteration of the bill and in the last Parliament, and after consulting with those who work with members of the trans community and members of the community itself, I am frankly shocked by the discrimination this group of people faces.

The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and witnesses to this bill at committee, and indeed members here today, have given this House so many examples that I cannot reiterate them. Suffice it to say that I would offer that the summary of evidence could read as follows: the trans community in Canada has, on frequent occasions, experienced elevated levels of sexual violence committed against members; frequent workplace discrimination and job loss based on gender; lack of clarity on health care provisions and sometimes access to health care; lack of clarity on processes related to obtaining identification documents; bullying in places of employment and educational institutions; discrimination in accessing housing accommodation; and numerous other incidents of discrimination.

Most importantly, they live with the consequences of these acts of non-compassion, of false assumptions that, simply by virtue of their state, they are sexually promiscuous, or more ludicrously, that they are criminal. In this, the trans community experiences very high levels of both depression and suicide. This is not acceptable to me, and this is the why of this bill. It is my hope that no one in the House, either on this side or the other side, could read the testimony, could talk to people in the community, and argue that this is acceptable or tolerable in our country.

The question set upon us as legislators is the how. How do we prevent these situations from occurring?

I have spent a lot of time on the how. I found that this bill seeks to address the how by addressing the following assumption, using the language of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca during the bill review at the Standing Committee on Justice, that “transgendered Canadians do not enjoy the same protection of their rights as other Canadians”.

This is a very serious charge that is worthy of study, as the ideas and values that are the heart of how our country operates, the freedoms it affords to all groups to worship without persecution, to seek prosperity in one's field of work, to choose whom we love, and to speak with conviction on issues that impact our communities, are all based on the assumption that Canadians have equality of rights in freedom of expression and can do so without the threat of discrimination or violence to their person. However, to assess whether this bill provides an adequate how, I first evaluated the validity of this assumption.

Except now that the Canada tribunal has emphatically stated that there is no longer any doubt, I would suggest to you that your first hurdle has been cleared by precedent... There is now case law that supports the proposition that individuals who have a genuine gender identity disorder are entitled to human rights protection.

There have been numerous examples given in the House and at committee of case law that shows that this provision exists. I understand the member for Halifax when she says that she wants to see herself in that human rights bill. The case law does exist to show that it is there.

Mr. Ian Fine, the acting secretary of the human rights commission, stated the following, “the commission, the tribunal, and the courts view gender identity and gender expression as protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act”. Having said that, he also stated that “adding the grounds of gender identity and gender expression to the [Canadian Human Rights Act] would make the protection” of the transgender community explicit. The rationale that he stated for this necessity was as follows: “This would promote acceptance and send a message that everyone in Canada has the right to be treated with equality, dignity, and respect”. I do not disagree with the latter part of that statement. It gave me quite a bit of pause for thought, and that has been at the heart of my deliberations on the bill.

It could be argued that this is contradictory in some regard. Mr. Fine previously made a statement that the tribunal, the commission and the courts do view gender identity and expression as protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that somehow even though this protection exists, it does not send enough of a message to Canadians on this issue. While this contradiction may be well intentioned, I feel there are many examples where serious issues arise when legislators equate symbolism with social action or when we inadvertently dilute the role of social activists by being reactive to an issue with legislative symbolism.

The member for Halifax has my playbook because she stole my speech on International Women's Rights Day. I would like to speak on the social action process for the struggle for female gender equality.

Even after laws were passed to enshrine women's gender equality within our laws, the member is right; we did not see those changes happen overnight. In fact, lawsuits still had to be fought and won, offenders had to be charged, battles had to be waged to change workplace codes of conduct, and awareness training programs had to be crafted. I would like to highlight that in the British parliament, even after women had been elected, as little time ago as 1993, a woman in this place did not make it to a vote because she could not find a bathroom.

I have also stood in the House to highlight that sexism does happen with frequency in this country in spite of these laws. I am not trying to imply that the struggle for trans rights is directly concurrent with the struggle for women's rights, but in my deliberations on the bill, I found there is a burden of evidence which suggests that case law does exist to provide the trans community with protection under the law against discrimination and violence. Here is my concern. In this fact, the how of this legislation may not achieve the ultimate solution to the why, in that it may place too much of an emphasis on symbolism over direct social action.

A question that I have struggled with in evaluating the validity of the bill is what guidance we, as legislators, are truly giving judicial organizations in how to carry out the intentions of Parliament in this regard. The way the term “gender identity” is defined in the preamble of the bill, even with the amendments, played a large part in my decision to vote to study the bill further. I am still not entirely clear on how parliamentarians, the human rights tribunal, criminal courts, sentencing judges and the broader community at large will be required to interpret this term.

I am also not clear on the following key issues. What constitutes the scope of discrimination against someone based on his or her gender identity in the eyes of my colleagues, as legislators, of members of the trans community and the courts? What kind of speech based on someone's gender identity could be considered hate propaganda? What does it mean in defined terms to have a bias based on a person's deeply held internal and individual experience of gender?

Admittedly, the evaluation of this legislation has been very difficult for me because I believe that the why it presents is concerning. Any time we as parliamentarians are faced with clear situations where fear of differences or lack of awareness allow hatred to mushroom, we have to take note and ask ourselves what role we play in breaking down these barriers. This legislation has opened my eyes to the plight of a group of people in this country who experience extreme discrimination. Both sides of this debate should agree that equality and protection against harm are two fundamental values that all Canadians of any gender, any age, any background are entitled to.

However, as legislators we are also tasked with deciding if the proposed legislation is sound. Given the lack of clarity that I found in the bill, I do have concern about its viability and if the how will achieve what the community and Canadians hope for in addressing the why.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege and pleasure for me to speak this evening about the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca's bill, particularly since I had the pleasure of examining and fine-tuning it with my Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights colleagues.

It was a very intense experience. We had to establish the parameters for the debate on the bill, which seeks to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

First, it is important to point out that gender identity and gender expression are basically a state of being, or in other words, something that cannot be fully explained outside the personal experience of the individual in that state.

I am well aware that some of my colleagues are somewhat reluctant to deal with differences related to gender identity and gender expression. They may even feel uncomfortable or unable to do so as a result of their own personal experiences.

I would like to use my own experience growing up as a heterosexual in a very common family situation as an example. Like any individual in our society, at some point I had to deal with my gender identity and gender expression. We have no choice about this state of being. We cannot really change it and we have to live with it, yet we still have to make decisions dictated by societal conditions and our ability to deal with those conditions.

From this perspective, for certain groups in our society, it may be difficult, if not practically impossible, to deal with one's gender identity and expression and the decisions associated with that without a certain amount of suffering and a feeling of helplessness.

I would like to come back to my personal experience. I am 46 years old, and I had my late father as a role model. If he were still alive, he would be 80 years old. He was a man from a certain era who quietly shouldered his responsibilities, keeping many questions and doubts, as well as his share of heartache, to himself. That was the example I had, and I had to decide whether or not to follow it. I also had to determine how far I was prepared to go and how much of his legacy I was prepared to accept.

That sometimes put me in uncomfortable situations as a heterosexual. It can be difficult to be at ease with being a man. We are told that real men do not cry, that they shoulder their responsibilities, that they should take their place in society, get a job, have children and have a nice little family. Having to conform can be a heavy burden, especially as society evolves. We experienced that in Quebec, with the upheaval of the Quiet Revolution.

Sometimes, our grandparents' reference points, which seemed to be set in stone, are jarred or even swept away by compelling movements that force people to question themselves and face a reality that is completely different from everything they have every known.

We all experience frustrations in life. Some people, however, not only experience frustrations, but also face suffering because of conditions in society and repression by intolerant groups that have no place in a society that prides itself on freedom and on giving every individual an equal opportunity and an equal place in society.

We should not hide the fact that the testimony we heard in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was shocking. I would like to repeat part of what the member for Calgary Centre-North said. At times, we were outraged and at times we were simply pained by their stories. I cannot describe how it felt to hear people testify about the humiliation they endured in everyday situations that I, as a heterosexual man, could never have imagined.

At times, an overwhelming sense of outrage came over me, and I had a hard time accepting the systematic obstruction, the underhanded attempts to obstruct the committee's normal work in order to gain the upper hand in this debate.

All of my colleagues in the House will agree that human dignity is non-negotiable. It is very simple. I would even add that the sanctity of human life is something we value so highly—at least we should—that we cannot put a price on defending it. We must never tolerate pettiness or compromise.

I have spoken about my faith before, and I want to share some of the Catholic Church's social doctrine. It very clearly states that every human being has the unalienable right to exist and to have dignity within society. That represents a tremendous challenge, because it means that we must allow the right to be different, the right to a certain degree of dissidence, the right to go against the established norm and the right to go against the stream.

This also means that people like me, who have the privilege to have a favourable—even comfortable—place in society, must make concessions. I am very pleased to be able to reach out to a group in our society whose rights are too easily violated and to offer them some progress. It may not be perfect, but it is still progress.

With respect to the work in committee, it is no secret that transgender and transsexual individuals too often face problems with the courts. I do not want the courts to determine their rights. That is my role and my duty as legislator, and that is what I want to do, here in this House, with Bill C-279.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege today to rise and speak in support of Bill C-279. The bill would add gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act, section 2, as prohibited grounds for discrimination. It would also amend the Criminal Code to include gender identity and gender expression as distinguishing characteristics protected under section 318, and as aggravating circumstances to be taken into consideration under section 718.2, hate crimes, at the time of sentencing.

However, before I go into more detail on the bill, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the stellar speeches I have heard tonight. My colleague from Charlottetown captured what the legislation is about, but also identified how many of the fears are baseless and that a lot of flames are being fanned to scare people and make them not feel right.

My colleague from Halifax, from a legal point of view, but more from the emotional point of view, very importantly pointed out to us that we are not talking about giving people rights here; we are talking about acknowledging in legislation, laws that we are saying they already have. I have not heard anyone in the House say that transgendered people do not have these protections. Therefore, let us make them explicit by putting them in the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act.

My colleague also went on to talk about, and we could see it in her presentation, the human toll it takes when we have discrimination and we have a minority group of people in our society who do not feel reflected in law. They have to find a corner that they can hide in or that they can fit in. That is not how we are as Canadians.

I also liked the struggle of my colleague across the way, the member for Calgary Centre North. What was so moving about her presentation was that she identified beautifully the very reason that we need this legislation. She felt, when she heard and read the testimonies, the pain and anguish that some Canadians are going through because of gender identity issues.

After listening to these three members, I cannot imagine anyone in the House being opposed to the legislation. We disagree in the House on all kinds of things, on the budget, on some pieces of legislation, but surely when it comes to fundamental rights and protections for every Canadian, no matter what race or gender, that is one thing we can all agree is fundamentally Canadian and the right thing to do.

My colleague articulated beautifully the struggle that women have had. When we look at history, it was not that long ago that women were not recognized as persons. I challenge anyone in the room to think that we could be sitting in the House as women representing our ridings if that legislation had not been enacted and we had not been recognized as persons. That did not automatically get rid of all the discrimination and all the barriers and glass ceilings that exist. However, what it did do was to open up a pathway, and it took away the greatest barrier, which was to not be recognized at all.

This bill, in turn, would do exactly that. It says to the members of our transgendered community that they are part of this society and they are explicit in our human rights code. They do not have to hide, nor do they have to go looking to see which corner of the human rights code they fit in, nor do they have to see if there is a judge who is going to be favouring looking for a spot or fear a day when the judiciary could turn around and say it is not explicit and cannot be found in here, so they are not covered. It is to avoid that very situation that we have to have legislation like this.

In our human rights code, we identify race, gender and many other things. This bill would add another specificity to the word “gender”. It would identify it to include Canadian society.

I do not know if members are aware, but I was a classroom teacher for a very long time. In that role, one of the things I discovered very early on in my teaching is that for children to be successful in life, they have to see themselves reflected, but they also have to feel themselves protected. When we have transgender young people in our community who do not feel protected explicitly in our law, we leave them vulnerable.

I do not have to explain and draw graphic pictures in words of the kind of discrimination many face. I am not saying this legislation would take it away, but when this legislation is passed, it would send a message to employers and to the very few Canadians who may have a tendency not to be so inclusive and not to be so accepting. There are very few of those in Canada, I find, but when it comes to imposing hurt on a person, one person can do a lot of damage. It is for that reason that we must have this law and this kind of explicit protection in our legislation.

As we sit in here, words are important, and words in legislation become even more important. I heard a colleague today speak from a legal perspective that I had not thought of, describing all the different areas the different judges have had to explore to see where discrimination on gender identity and gender expression could be covered under the human rights code. They actually have to struggle to find those areas, and if they have to struggle to find them, our human rights code needs to be made more explicit.

Once again I acknowledge the wonderful speeches made by my colleagues from Halifax and Calgary Centre—North and the emotion and empathy I heard from my colleague from Charlottetown. I am sure her colleagues on that side of the aisle heard the pain that she experienced as she chose her words very carefully and will see that it is time for this House of Commons to take action.

It would be fitting if we could all vote for this measure unanimously, especially when we are on the eve of International Women's Day. We would celebrate the fact that we have enshrined those rights into our legislation and into human rights.

I appeal to my colleagues across the aisle to vote for this unanimously. I know they are going to, because they are very caring Canadians.

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 9.

Normally, at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to standing Order 98, the divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, March 20, immediately before the time provided for private member's business.

Mr. Speaker, I come back to the question I asked on November 26, 2012, concerning the transparency of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman. He did not seem to have access to the documents he needed to fulfill his mandate effectively and conduct his investigations.

…we continue to work very productively with the ombudsman's office and we will do so within his mandate and within the law. It is that simple. That is what would be expected.

And yet, it is not only the ombudsman's office that has difficulty accessing the information needed to do the work. For example, the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer seems to be having the same problems. He also has difficulty getting access to figures to determine where cuts were made in the departments and how they were targeted. If there are cuts, he really must have the documents that go along with them.

Despite repeated requests, the Conservatives refuse to be transparent. Yet, the very foundation of any democratic system rests on the ability of parliamentarians to monitor government spending. Instead, and this seems to be common practice at the Department of National Defence, the government is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to pay private auditing firms, even though there are parliamentary officers who could do the job. For instance, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Auditor General or the ombudsman are all here for the same reason: to conduct such audits and produce studies depending on the situation.

We have nothing against independent audits; on the contrary. However, when officers of Parliament provide independent analyses, the government should support their efforts instead of questioning their math skills or not providing the necessary documents.

The government is paying private firms to do work that has already been done, and the only reason is so they can keep the reports in the hands of the departments and manipulate the information more easily in the House. At the end of the day, it is a huge waste of time, money and resources.

The treatment of reservists is an important issue for all parliamentarians, or at least I hope it is, and the question I asked was about health care for reservists. The ombudsman's report followed up on the recommendations made in the 2008 report. I would like to state that most of these recommendations are apparently being implemented, and that is a good thing.

However, there has been no action on recommendation 10: “...that the Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Plan be changed...to ensure that all Canadian Forces members receive the same compensation for the same injury”. I am not sure that there have been any improvements or updates.

This recommendation refers to reservists serving in Afghanistan alongside regular forces. However, there is serious inequity in their treatment if they are injured or mutilated. The Forces' Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Plan provides a lump sum payment that is different for a reservist than for a regular forces member. The insurance is not the same. If a class A reservist and a regular forces member each lost a hand, the reservist would receive compensation of $50,000 and the regular forces member would receive $125,000, or 2.5 times as much.

I would like my colleague to tell me about changes that have been made.

Chris AlexanderConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I will begin responding directly to my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue on the issue of the accidental dismemberment insurance plan.

The delay in implementing the changes to cover reservists for this plan was absolutely unacceptable, and we have moved swiftly at the Department of National Defence to make sure that this issue was resolved. We informed Canadians and the Canadian armed forces reservists that the necessary changes were made within weeks of the ombudsman's report being delivered last fall. We are committed to progress toward the fair and equitable treatment of all reservists who play an essential role in the defence of this country.

I would like to highlight the role our reservists have played in Afghanistan and in Canadian Armed Forces overseas missions over the years. The hon. member knows all about that.

This is part of a multi-dimensional plan to improve the lives of reservists across the board.

I would like to thank the member for raising this question, as it gives us the opportunity to clarify certain points.

At National Defence, we are very aware of the excellent work our ombudsman has done. We welcome his report, which the member spoke of. Our reservists are indispensable. They account for approximately 15% of our personnel who are serving in Afghanistan, even now.

We followed up on the recommendations presented by the ombudsman in 2008. Progress was made on 11 of those 12 recommendations.

National Defence made changes to the Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Plan, as I already mentioned. In addition, the department also took measures to update and save reservists' medical files using the Canadian Forces health information system and by applying the same standards as exist in the regular force. We are respecting their needs as well as our obligation to maintain the confidentiality of this information.

In 2009, the Surgeon General published an interim guidance for the provision of health care to reservists. It will serve as a guide until the department has made the changes to the Queen’s Regulations and Orders that apply to the Canadian Forces.

We have also taken measures to accelerate the medical release process for all reservists.

The department is ensuring that reservists who are injured or become ill while they are participating in training will have access to compensation and appropriate medical care.

We are in the process of resolving the other more complex pending issue of fair treatment for reservists. Reservists are subject to a certain number of health assessments, for example, before deployments and promotions.

However, the ombudsman's recommendations stated that there must be periodic health assessments, which has proven to be a difficult recommendation to implement, because of the costs involved and the schedules of reservists.

We did a trial run of periodic health assessments in one location last year, and we have expanded that to five reserve brigade groups across the country.

Our goal is to develop an implementation plan once the trial is complete at the end of this year. So that will be 12 responses—in the near future—to 12 recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the government agrees with all the ombudsman's recommendations.

I hope that the changes that still need to be made to meet those recommendations will be found in the next budget, and I sincerely hope that they will be retroactive to the start of the mission in Afghanistan.

Clearly, there is no reason why such an unfair situation occurred, and it is vital that measures be taken quickly. The next budget would be an excellent opportunity to do just that.

The Canadian Armed Forces reserve is very important to the Government of Canada. It was essential during the mission to Afghanistan. I used to be a reservist myself. It would be unthinkable for them to be treated like a different class of soldier.

Furthermore, I would like to remind my colleague that much of the infrastructure for reservists is crumbling and that there have been cuts to positions in the regions. I hope that the government will take action in this regard for the well-being of our reserve forces.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the members in the House, I would like to thank the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her service as a reservist, for her professional experience in the Canadian armed forces, and for the concern she shows for the lives of reservists and their health care. We must all ensure that they continue to receive a higher level of care.

We are absolutely convinced that we must follow all of the ombudsman's recommendations. We are determined to do so. We have made a great deal of progress in this regard already.

Our commitment to reservists includes a new range of mental health policies. We have often talked about this in committee. We will continue to do so and to ensure that the health of reservists in all areas is well taken care of. If reservists are in another class, it is probably a higher one. We had militias and reservists well before we had regular forces in Canada.

Having said that, I do want to take the opportunity to share with the minister a very strong passion for this particular program.

The Province of Manitoba was very quick to act. It was actually a former premier, Gary Filmon, who entered into an agreement quite quickly after Mr. Chrétien introduced the program, which really allowed Manitoba to get involved in a very serious fashion with the nominee program.

During the nineties, immigration numbers in Manitoba were around 3,500, and through the provincial nominee program, our immigration numbers exploded to the degree in which we were receiving 13,000 or 14,000. Without the provincial nominee program, that just would never have taken place. To that end, when I am speaking in my home community in Manitoba, I often talk about just how wonderful that particular program is.

That is where my passion comes, because I have seen the benefits of the provincial nominee program for my province, and as immigration critic, I do see great value for other provinces. I can appreciate the need to look at how different provinces ultimately utilize the program. I have recognized for many years that different provinces have different ways of processing nominees.

It does have an impact abroad. The Philippines was Manitoba's number one source of immigrants. Today it is our number one source of immigrants for Canada as a whole. It is not just the Philippines. One could look at India and other countries.

We are looking at different provinces and individual nominee programs, because there is so much variation. I do believe there will be a lot more pull from different provinces. Some provinces want to have a larger number. Ontario, for example, based on its population, is entitled to a much larger number of nominee certificates, and I acknowledge that up front.

Other provinces really want to further develop the program so that they could enrich their populations with the type of skilled workers they want to see brought into their province.

I am hoping we will see the benefits of the program overall. There is a need for Ottawa to have some sort of review of the program with the idea of how we can ensure there is more harmony among different provinces and more consistency within the development of the program, and a need to just plan it for the next number of years, believing we will have the nominee program for many years to come.

I would be very much interested in the parliamentary secretary's response to my statement.

Rick DykstraConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member, my counterpart and colleague on the citizenship and immigration committee, for speaking about a program that he acknowledges, and we both agree, has been a major source of pride for a number of provinces, in terms of the growth they have witnessed over the past number of years.

We have had this discussion at committee. When we took government in 2006, there were around 4,000 individuals and family members who had the opportunity to pursue permanent residency through the provincial nominee program. The provincial nominee program had just started and was in its infancy. It gave provinces and territories across our great country the opportunity to participate, in a very regional way, in achieving and bringing federal skilled workers into their province. It gave them the opportunity to identify areas of the province that were in need of additional assistance, and for companies and small business that were looking for individuals they could not find in Canada to fill those positions.

Since 2006, when we saw this program as a bit of an afterthought of the previous government, we have actually expanded that program, to the point where this year, in 2013, we hope we are going to achieve a target of around 42,000 individuals and family members who are going to come to this country, achieve permanent residency and participate in this program.

The member is right about the point that there are provinces like his, Manitoba, which has done a considerably better job than a number of other provinces in terms of utilizing this federal program. They have grown in leaps and bounds because they have been focused on growth and on filling those positions. The province has been successful at achieving what used to be a larger percentage of individuals and family members moving to Ontario. Manitoba now has the ability, as have a number of other provinces in the country, partially because of the provincial nominee program, to grow their numbers in terms of the size of the province. From a percentage of 64% of all immigration taking place in the province of Ontario in 2005, it is now a little over 52%, in 2012.

Part and parcel of why we have such a great variance in the degree of growth in the country is because provinces like Manitoba have achieved that. I certainly see other provinces that have not had the same kind of success and focus. The member mentioned Ontario. Ontario has not put forward a prescribed plan that would see them enabled with a provincial nominee program in a much stronger way.

I am quite happy, on a regular basis, to talk about the provincial nominee program. It makes up a little over a third of the federal skilled workers program in this country. It is to bring to small and large businesses in this country, individuals who want to come to Canada to start a new life in the profession they have because we do not have people in Canada to fill those positions.

It is a program that works. It is a program that we are continuing to expand. It is a program that we are focused on in 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on one of the words that the parliamentary secretary made reference to, and that was the word “expand”.

Let us look at the two extremes: the province of Manitoba versus the province of Ontario. The province of Ontario wants to further develop its program. I have had the opportunity to talk to people from Ontario, who have indicated very clearly that they want to see the program expanded. Then there is the province of Manitoba, which at the very least would love to be able to maintain its numbers.

The question for the parliamentary secretary is this. When he thinks about two or three years from now, does he believe the number of provincial nominee certificates will continue to increase, in terms of Ottawa allowing for a larger number of nominee applicants throughout the country? Or, does he see the provinces having to work out a set number and that the number would not likely change, or, if it does, it would be of a modest nature?

Mr. Speaker, I think the growth and expansion of the program over the last seven years speaks for itself. Steps have been taken to expand the program, and to lessen our federal skilled worker program to make room for the provincial nominee program. How that is going to move itself forward is a constant evolution.

Whether we speak to expanding from 42,000 or 43,000 to a higher number in 2014 or we seek to achieve a reallocation of numbers across the country is an ongoing conversation that the minister has had with his provincial counterparts. It is an ongoing discussion that individual citizenship and immigration ministries have had across our country.

The fact is, I do not think we can talk about whether there is going to be continued growth or whether we need to diversify the program; it is about making sure that we do it right on a yearly basis.